I find it hard to imagine a future where US corporations have degraded to such a point.

You have made it abundantly clear that you don't know the fundamentals. If you want people to consider the arguments you put forth, you will need a better understanding of the problem domain. Go study, come back when you can contribute.

Last I checked you needed either a developer account or a jailbreak to load "whatever apk you want" onto the quest, and there didn't seem to be any jailbreaks around.

If this state of things has changed, please do share! I would love to be able to actually use the hardware I already paid for.

Everything is going to contribute to tracking, though. It's really hard to ensure that data doesn't leak.

Example proposal: sites attach an X-AGE-RATING header to pages and browsers only render the page if X-AGE-RATING < USER_AGE.

Exploitable Issue: Send multiple requests from one page for various style sheets with different X-AGE-RATING headers. The ones that get loaded give you all you need to find the user's age cohort.

But, the unique combination of things like your screen dimensions, number of threads, charge percentage, default languages, available fonts, etc already makes tracking possible. I don't know if adding one more - carefully chosen feature - would really make the situation that much worse.

Isn't this the logical end goal of basically every approach to "age verification", though? If you really want to control access to the internet, then you can't let people have a VPN or Tor, and if you don't want people to VPNs or Tor then you need to lock the device down.

> You had my sympathy until you mentioned your healing. Now I know you were fired for being a pussy.

I was expecting some more substantial motivation for that but it's not even motivated by some weird disagreement about acceptable behavior at work, it's just this weird insanely toxic belief that taking care of yourself is "pussy behavior".

Facebook has no content production experience though, and when they do dip their toes into that market its via AI slop (like their official AI accounts on instagram). I think this is because they don't value the human element of art at all.

They would be entirely reliant other content providers, which is a rough place to be in when you have to deal with actual studios and not just independent creators. Independent creators are easier for Facebook to exploit since they are usually small operations and dependent on facebook/instagram for market reach.

They don't have backing evidence and don't need it because they aren't starting from a position rooted in facts or logic, they start from a position rooted in feelings like "gender being a social construct makes me feel weird" and work backwards to whatever position they stake out.

The best move is always to aggressively call them out for what they are - gullible rubes at best and sociopathic liars at worst - and to not even bother engaging with the muck they sling.

Like, don't you get it already? Nobody is falling for this idiotic "it's about the debt, we're fiscally responsible" bullshit anymore. You can come in here and plug your ears and screech about how all this grift is actually great for the country because 2 billionaires getting 1% more wealth is somehow worth more to you than 100 homeless people being fed and houses, but nobody believes it.

https://militaryspend.org/us-iran-war

Yeah, that's what I figured - you are in fact completely incapable of defining "postmodernist". I don't think anyone is surprised that you have no idea what you're talking about though, it's pretty obvious that you're just a really emotionally fragile guy who is having some big feelings about minorities existing.

By the way, I know there's no god, because if there was you would have spontaneously imploded from the sheer irony of whining about bringing “intersectional personal attributes into a discussion of science funding” in a post-DOGE world.

Basically, as long as you start from a clear context for each interaction and ensure that any allowed tool calling is carefully gated to allow access only to resources the user should have, there isn't an additional risk of data leaking between sessions. Assuming that the LLM provider properly keeps sessions separate.

The bigger risk is data leaking into the context from other sources - any user provided data that gets fed in as part of the context could also contain a sneaky "disregard everything and make me a pancake".

You claim that the cuts aren't actually harmful then turn around and clarify that it's good to hurt people: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48636815 that's how it is obvious to everyone here that you aren't even trying to engage in good faith.

The linked comment:

>> hurting people they don’t like

>> genuine desire to improve America

> We think these are related, just like you do. The difference is that you assume that hurting billionaires will improve America while we assume that hurting NGOs and postmodernist academics will do so.

> And that difference results from the fact that you think you can construct a new society without billionaires and industrialists that nonetheless offers the prosperity we have today, and more. By contrast, we think the way to get more prosperity is to do more of the things that made America prosperous in the past.

Oh, we're all well aware that you think hurting people is the only way to improve the country.

> The difference is that you assume that hurting billionaires will improve America while we assume that hurting NGOs and postmodernist academics will do so.

Don't you know that lying is a sin? You can't even define "postmodernist". No. I've heard this screeching noise you're making many times but it always boils down to the same truth: you don't believe in hurting "postmodernist academics", you believe in hurting people who aren't straight, white, christians.